Massasoit Industrial Corporation v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-031-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 16-P-459 Appeals Court MASSASOIT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION & another.[1] No. 16-P-459. Plymouth. December 7, 2016. – March 23, 2017. Present: Cypher, Maldonado, & Blake, JJ. Handicapped Persons. Anti-Discrimination Law, Handicap, Age, Employment, Termination of employment. Employment, Discrimination, Termination. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Emotional Distress. Damages, Emotional distress. Words, “Handicap.” Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 2, 2014. The case was heard by Thomas F. McGuire, Jr., J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings. Susanne Hafer for the plaintiff. Wendy A. Cassidy for Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Christopher Maffucci, for the intervener, was present but did not argue. BLAKE, J. The plaintiff, Massasoit Industrial Corporation (Massasoit), appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court denying its challenge to the decision and final order of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). The MCAD decision affirmed a hearing officer’s order, arising from her finding that Massasoit had terminated the employment of William J. Glynn in violation of the handicap and age discrimination provisions of G. L. c. 151B. We affirm. Background. In 1986, Massasoit hired Glynn as a part-time custodian in its outside maintenance department. At the time, Glynn was fifty-four years old. For the ten years prior to his termination, he performed general custodial work at the registry of motor vehicles (RMV) in Brockton to the satisfaction of his supervisors. He had a spotless personnel record with Massasoit, and had never called in sick or missed work due to illness. On March 30, 2007, Glynn left work early because he was not feeling well. Glynn’s son took him to the hospital, where he stayed for three days to treat pneumonia. Glynn asked his daughter-in-law to notify his coworker of his absence from work due to his illness, which she did on the next day Glynn was scheduled to work. The coworker assured her that he would notify their supervisor. On April 6, 2007, less than one week after being discharged from the hospital, Glynn was readmitted with chest pains and diagnosed with a heart attack. The daughter-in-law again notified the coworker of Glynn’s situation, and he assured her that he would notify their supervisor. He also visited Glynn and assured him that the supervisor had been notified. From April 5, 2007, through […]
Categories: News Tags: 1103117, Against, Commission, Corporation, Discrimination, Industrial, Lawyers, massachusetts, Massasoit, Weekly
Police Warn Against Ransom Extortion Scam in Boston
Boston Police are warning residents about a varied phone extortion scam that involves victims being called and told that a loved one or family member is being held captive, or will be harmed, unless a ransom is paid. According to BPDnews.com, the police have taken several reports from residents who have been targets of the scam. In several cases the suspect(s) say they captured their victim after an alleged motor vehicle accident that resulted in property damage that he or she cannot pay for. Family members have been able to contact the alleged kidnapped victim and confirm he or she has not been kidnapped, reported BPDnews.com. “It is not uncommon for the caller to know basic details about the victim’s life, including names of family members, places of employment and school information. This information is used to help convince the victim of the legitimacy of the caller’s claims,” posted the police. Victims are often told to not call the police. Boston police provided tips on receiving similar phone calls: • Ask the caller specifics about where the family member is located• Have the caller physically describe the family member to see if the caller can provide some level of detail that could help confirm or dispel the claim.• After gathering as many details as possible during the call the resident should attempt to make contact with the person that is allegedly being held captive and confirm safety.• If a text is received the resident should first make contact with the person that is allegedly being held captive to ensure that they are safe and if they are unable to make contact then they should probe the individual texting to provide specifics, as mentioned above.• In all cases note the phone number where the call or text originated and report the incident to the Boston Police Department. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
Read the Criminal Complaint Against Bombing Suspect Tsarnaev
[Editor’s note: The following is the affadavit of Special Agent Daniel R. Genck, submitted as part of the criminal complaint filed against Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The document was converted from a PDF and edited only to remove formatting errors.] AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIAL AGENT I, Daniel R. Genck, being duly sworn, depose and state: 1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and have been so employed since 2009. I am currently assigned to one of the Boston Field Office’s Counter-terrorism Squads. Among other things, I am responsible for conducting national security investigations of potential violations of federal criminal laws as a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”). During my tenure as an agent, I have participated in numerous national security investigations. I have received extensive training and experience in the conduct of national security investigations, and those matters involving domestic and international terrorism. 2. During my employment with the FBI, I have conducted and participated in many investigations involving violations of United States laws relating to the provision of material support to terrorism. I have participated in the execution of numerous federal search and arrest warrants in such investigations. I have had extensive training in many methods used to commit acts of terrorism contrary to United States law. 3. This affidavit is submitted in support of an application for a complaint charging DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV of Cambridge, Massachusetts (“DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV”) with using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, resulting in death. More specifically, I submit this affidavit in support of an application for a complaint charging DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV with (1) unlawfully using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (namely, an improvised explosive device) against persons and property within the United States used in interstate and foreign commerce and in an activity that affects interstate and foreign commerce, which offense and its results affected interstate and foreign commerce (including, but not limited to, the Boston Marathon, private businesses in Eastern Massachusetts, and the City of Boston itself), resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2332a; and (2) maliciously damaging and destroying, by means of an explosive, real and personal property used in interstate and foreign commerce and in an activity affecting interstate and foreign commerce, resulting in personal injury and death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i). 4. This affidavit is based upon my personal involvement in this investigation, my training and experience, my review of relevant evidence, and information supplied to me by other law enforcement officers. It does […]
Protests Planned Against MBTA Bag Checks
A pro-4th Amendment coalition with roots in the Occupy movement will stage a protest of random bag inspections at T platforms around the city this weekend, including Kenmore and Ruggles stations. Defend the 4th, a self-proclaimed “group of individuals from a broad array of political/social leanings and organizations,” plans to demonstrate across Boston Feb. 2, according to an email to Patch from coalition spokesman Garret Kirkland. “Any instances of ‘random’ searches being conducted on a citizen or visitor to the Commonwealth warrants protest on 4th Amendment grounds,” Kirkland wrote. “We believe that it is a gross violation of our rights and of the principles of our nation, that any person should have to prove that they are not doing anything wrong.” Defend the 4th plans to march from noon to 3 p.m. Feb. 2, along several branches of the T, according to a flyer. Groups will begin at Harvard Square, South Station, Lechmere, Kenmore and Ruggles T stops. The MBTA randomly inspects passenger’s bags, but does not search, according to Kelly Smith, deputy press secretary for the MBTA. “These random, non-intrusive inspections take place every week at various stations,” Smith wrote in an email to Patch. In 2006, then Gov. Mitt Romney directed the MBTA to perform random bag inspections for explosive materials, resurrecting the practice which started at the Boston Democratic National Convention in 2004. “Passengers are selected on a random basis through the use of a computer-generated sequence of numbers, according to the MBTA,” according to an informational post on the inspections on the MBTA’s website. “These inspections involve the brushing, with a swab, of the exterior of a carry-on. This swab is then placed in explosive trace detection equipment.” In August 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York upheld a decision that bag inspections on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority do not violate an individual’s Constitutional rights, according to an MBTA press release from October 2006. Following the London subway bombings in July of 2005, New York had instituted a policy that was based on the MBTA’s random bag inspection program used during the DNC. Two court cases- American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 2004 and MacWade v. Kelly, 2006 – upheld the inspections, according to the MBTA. “It’s not searches, it’s swabs,” Smith said. “They don’t even go inside your bag.” Smith added passengers can decline the swabs, but they then forfeit their right to ride on the MBTA. Still, Kirkland asserts Defend the 4th feels all such inspections along the MBTA, and the MBTA’s coordination with TSA, which performs the inspections, are at least inappropriate and […]